Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is Neil J. Wilkof, Annsley Merelle Ward, Nicola Searle, Eleonora Rosati, and Merpel, with contributions from Mark Schweizer. Read, post comments and participate! E-mail the Kats here

The team is joined by Guest Kats Rosie Burbidge, Stephen Jones, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy, and by InternKats Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo, Hayleigh Bosher, Tian Lu and Cecilia Sbrolli.

Thursday, 23 October 2014

With this post we are staying with on the topic of shoes and
copyright, already discussed here and here, but this recent case from the commercial
division of the French Cour de Cassation
also raised some European Union (EU) and Berne Convention issues. The Case is
Cass.Com.,12-16.844, October 7, 2014.

French catalog retailer La Redoute sold in France a
particular model of flip flop shoes which Italian fashion company Tod’s
believed was a copy of its own “Fiji” flip flops, which had been sold in France
since 2003. The flip flops sold by La Redoute had been manufactured in Italy and
sold to La Redoute by the Italian manufacturer.

Tod’s filed a copyright infringement suit against La Redoute
in the Paris Tribunal de Commerce
(business court) and won. The Paris Court of Appeals confirmed the judgment on October
21, 2011, and La Redoute appealed in cassation (cassation means “breaching”).

Restriction of Free
Movement of Goods in the EU?

La Redoute argued that the principle of free movement of
goods within the EU prevents a product lawfully placed on the market in one EU
Member State (First Member State) to be deemed infringing a model manufactured
in that same Member State by a court from another Member State (Second Member
State), even if it is not established that such good was considered counterfeited
by the laws of the First Member State.

Tod's Fiji Flip Flops

La Redoute argued that courts of the Second Member State
must appreciate whether a copyright infringement claim is valid by applying the
law of the First Member State. For La Redoute, French law should not have been
applied in this case, but, rather, Italian law. Of course, this would have
benefitted the French retailer as French law recognizes that shoes can be
protected by copyright but Italian law, the Legislative Decree No. 95 of February 2, 2001, which implemented Directive 98/71/EC on the Legal Protection of Designs, may or may not protect shoes.

La Redoute argued that the ruling of the Paris Court of
Appeals should be overturned, as it violated Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which prohibits restriction of free
movement of goods in the EU, and that the Cour
de Cassation should refer this preliminary ruling question to the European
Court of Justice (ECJ):

"Doesn’t the principle of free movement of goods within the EU, as
established by Article 34 TFEU, impose, while taking into account the disparity
in copyright protection provided to works of applied art by the laws of the
various EU Member States and Article 5 of the 1886 Berne Convention, in order
to avoid that a product lawfully put on the market in a first Member State be
deemed infringing a model created in that State by a court in a second Member
State, while it is not established that this good is infringing in its state of
origin (the First Member State), that the court of the second State must
appreciate both the validity of the rights claimed and the existence of facts
of infringement by applying the law of the state of origin of the product?
" [Exhale now].

Violation of Article
6 of the European Convention of Human Rights?

Article 17 of Directive 98/71/EC addresses the issue of the
relationship of design protection laws and copyright protection law and states
that “[a] design protected by a design right registered in or in respect of a
Member State in accordance with this Directive shall also be eligible for
protection under the law of copyright of that State as from the date on which
the design was created or fixed in any form. The extent to which, and the
conditions under which, such a protection is conferred, including the level of
originality required, shall be determined by each Member State.”

La Redoute claimed that Article 17 thus created legal
uncertainty and, as such, violated Article 6 of the European Convention on
Human Rights which protects the right to a fair trial. It also asked the Cour de Cassation to refer a preliminary
ruling question to the ECJ in that regard.

Cour de Cassation Not Convinced

The Cour de Cassation
was not convinced by all these arguments. The court first noted that the
European Court of Justice ruled in Case C-5/11, Criminal proceedings against Titus Alexander Jochen Donner [see
also here] that Articles 34 and 36 of the TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that
they do not preclude a First Member State from prosecuting a copyright
infringement case if infringing copies of works protected by copyright in the
First Member State are sold to the public in its territory, even if the sale is
concluded in a Second Member State where these works are not protected by
copyright.

This Cat is All for Free Movement

In the Donner
case, an Italian company was selling unauthorized reproductions of furniture
which were protected by German copyright law as works of applied arts, but were
not at the time protected in Italy. The transporter of these goods had been
found guilty of abetting copyright infringement by a German court.

The Cour de Cassation
also found that Article 2 of the Berne Convention, which states that the enjoyment
and exercise of rights protected by the Convention are independent of the
existence of protection in the country of origin of the work, applied to this
case.

The Cour de Cassation rejected the argument that Article 17 of Directive
98/71/EC creates legal uncertainty, noting that that the Court of Appeals had
held that differences in the protection of copyright protection result from the
sovereign right of each Member State to legislate in this particular area. For
the Cour de Cassation, such
disparities do not affect the right to intelligibility and predictability of
the law, “if national law in this area is
generally accessible.”

The Cour de Cassation further noted that La Redoute did not argue that
French law is confusing, nor did it argue that legal protection in that area,
in France or Italy, fluctuates in such a way that legal standards become
unpredictable to the point of undermining the free movement of goods between EU
Member States.

La Redoute also argued that
copyright protection is not provided by the law of the Member States where the
damage is suffered, nor where Plaintiff filed suit, but rather by the law of
the Member State where the act which generated the infringement occurred.
Therefore, French courts should have applied Italian law, since the allegedly
infringing shoes had been manufactured there. For La Redoute, by applying
French law, the Paris Court of Appealshad violated Article 5.2 of the Berne Convention.

But the Cour de Cassation was not convinced, as under Article 5.2° of the
Berne Convention, the enjoyment and exercise of the author’s rights are “independent of the existence of protection
in the country of origin of the work” and “the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to
the author to protect his rights, [are]
governed exclusively by the laws of the
country where protection is claimed.”

IPKat Policies

This page summarises the IPKat policies on guest submissions and comments. If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation. To learn more about our guest submissions, comments and complaints policy and the procedure for lodging a complaint click here.

Has the Kat got your tongue?

Just click the magic box below and get this page translated into a bewildering selection of languages!